RE: [WSG] IEv8 support for Data URIs?
Hi All, Forget that last post; Complete rubbish; I made a basic error in the testing. It turns out IEv8 supports both the NOT IE conditional comment and Data URIs. The error was thrown up by badly layered conditional comments and the use of a * hack. Doh! Mike Foskett http://websemantics.co.uk/ From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Foskett, Mike Sent: 23 January 2009 10:55 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] IEv8 support for Data URIs? Hi All, I was under an impression that IEv8 was to support Data URI format for images. Yet preliminary testing with IETester shows a lack of support. Can anyone confirm if IEv8 is to support the format? Preliminary test results for IEv8b2: 1. The NOT IE conditional comment failed. 2. Data URI failed. 3. * hack failed. Though in fairness these were at a glance, and not at all extensive. They may even be (IETester) installation issues. Mike Foskett http://websemantics.co.uk/ Disclaimer This is a confidential email. Tesco may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Tesco. Tesco Stores Limited Company Number: 519500 Registered in England Registered Office: Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL VAT Registration Number: GB 220 4302 31 ---Warning This e-mail is from outside Tesco - check that it is genuine. Tesco may monitor and record all e-mails. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Looking For Information
I started to tab/enter throughout the site. Main navigation is at the top, is mouseover and mouse out and it skipped directly to the sign up It reads, Home, The Recipes, Nigella loves, Food Forum, Nigella's Books etc, Club Room Sign in, many of these are drop down menus I did not try the sign up. Below the sign up is what looks like an a series of images that has a hyper link., each image is text describing the type of recipes this will search and bring up for you. There are no alt tags on the images, however, I could tab and enter to these. I did not see any contact information on the homepage. I hope this helps a little. Nancy On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Marvin Hunkin startrekc...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. and this is not a very good design for accessibility. no contact information, i could seem to find. so posting below. cheers Marvin. Hi. went to this site at http://www.nigella.com and tried to signup, but not letting me and do you think i can find any contact information? i need help? maybe some one with some sight? tried a couple of e-mail addresses, but bounced back. getting frustrated. and my broadband connection is slow today? cheers Marvin. E-mail: startrekc...@gmail.com MSN: sttartrekc...@msn.com Skype: startrekcafe We Are The Borg! You Will Be Assimilated! Resistance Is Futile! Star Trek Voyager Episode 68 Scorpian Part One E-mail: startrekc...@gmail.com MSN: sttartrekc...@msn.com Skype: startrekcafe We Are The Borg! You Will Be Assimilated! Resistance Is Futile! Star Trek Voyager Episode 68 Scorpian Part One *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Hi Pascal In the JavaScript/Accessibility/form validation discussion you mention the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript. I'm always curious just how many people this is. Do you, or does anyone else, have any statistics on this? Is there a reason you describe it as a growing number? Any information greatly appreciated. Cheers Jessica Enders Principal Formulate Information Design http://formulate.com.au Phone: (02) 6116 8765 Fax: (02) 8456 5916 PO Box 5108 Braddon ACT 2612 On 19/01/2009, at 11:14 PM, Simon Pascal Klein wrote: If there were further communication between the user and server between submission of the form that would entail a page reload then a screen user shouldn’t have an issue, whereas if JavaScript would run in the background and inject errors or suggestions as it thinks the user makes them (e.g. password complexity recommendations, username not available messages) numerous accessibility issues arise. The only solution that came to mind was having a generic message (such as ‘please fill out all marked (*) fields’ or the like) that could be hidden using CSS and through JavaScript ‘unhidden’ when an error appears (though it could only be a generic error). As dandy as these automatic feedback and error messages are through JavaScript maybe a full submission and subsequent page reload is best—after all it’s impossible to tell those users using an accessibility aid like a screen reader from those who do not, and hey, the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript won’t see the glitzy JavaScript injected errors anyway. Just my 0.2¢. On 19/01/2009, at 5:52 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Isn't 'aria-required' a non-standard attribute? Sadly, yes. But there is some hope: it is possible that ARIA will be accepted in HTML5 and there is an initiative to provide validation for (X)HTML+ARIA: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/ 2008Sep/0381.html Validator.nu already has experimental support for HTML5+ARIA, and I believe (did not check) http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/ provides the same for document type HTML5. There is also a possibility to add ARIA attributes with Javascript. All the options are controversial, but that's how it is for now :( Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** --- Simon Pascal Klein Concept designer (w) http://klepas.org (e) kle...@klepas.org *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Our small county site has about 297k visitors last year and about 1.9% (5,700) had Javascript disabled according to SuperStats. On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 14:33, Jessica Enders jess...@formulate.com.auwrote: Hi Pascal In the JavaScript/Accessibility/form validation discussion you mention the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript. I'm always curious just how many people this is. Do you, or does anyone else, have any statistics on this? Is there a reason you describe it as a growing number? Any information greatly appreciated. Cheers Jessica Enders *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Given the increased number of threats and the availability of slick script blocker extensions for Firefox like NoScript (http://noscript.net/) it's only going to get more common, particularly among security conscious people. I certainly use it, only enabling Javascript for a site I'm visiting when I can see what benefit it has to me. Cheers, Dave On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 07:33 +1100, Jessica Enders wrote: Hi Pascal In the JavaScript/Accessibility/form validation discussion you mention the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript. I'm always curious just how many people this is. Do you, or does anyone else, have any statistics on this? Is there a reason you describe it as a growing number? Any information greatly appreciated. Cheers Jessica Enders Principal Formulate Information Design http://formulate.com.au Phone: (02) 6116 8765 Fax: (02) 8456 5916 PO Box 5108 Braddon ACT 2612 On 19/01/2009, at 11:14 PM, Simon Pascal Klein wrote: If there were further communication between the user and server between submission of the form that would entail a page reload then a screen user shouldn’t have an issue, whereas if JavaScript would run in the background and inject errors or suggestions as it thinks the user makes them (e.g. password complexity recommendations, username not available messages) numerous accessibility issues arise. The only solution that came to mind was having a generic message (such as ‘please fill out all marked (*) fields’ or the like) that could be hidden using CSS and through JavaScript ‘unhidden’ when an error appears (though it could only be a generic error). As dandy as these automatic feedback and error messages are through JavaScript maybe a full submission and subsequent page reload is best—after all it’s impossible to tell those users using an accessibility aid like a screen reader from those who do not, and hey, the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript won’t see the glitzy JavaScript injected errors anyway. Just my 0.2¢. On 19/01/2009, at 5:52 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Isn't 'aria-required' a non-standard attribute? Sadly, yes. But there is some hope: it is possible that ARIA will be accepted in HTML5 and there is an initiative to provide validation for (X)HTML+ARIA: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/ 2008Sep/0381.html Validator.nu already has experimental support for HTML5+ARIA, and I believe (did not check) http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/ provides the same for document type HTML5. There is also a possibility to add ARIA attributes with Javascript. All the options are controversial, but that's how it is for now :( Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** --- Simon Pascal Klein Concept designer (w) http://klepas.org (e) kle...@klepas.org *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- David Lane = Egressive Ltd = d...@egressive.com = m:+64 21 229 8147 p:+64 3 963 3733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
I have JS disabled, and only enable it for sites which I decide I need it working. Due to the way I work, I often have hundreds of browser tabs open and I can leave them open for weeks with JS off. I also find it educational to see which sites have non-functional forms because they have used JS only to drive them, or who's layout is totally governed by multimedia For example, this last month we were looking into buying a car, and the only conclusion I could come to, is that most car manufacturers are not interested in selling cars, rather than they are failing media outlet wannabes. Sven -- Consulting wiki Engineer Sven Dowideit - http://fosiki.com A WikiRing Partner - http://wikiring.com Public key - http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Sven+Dowideitop=indexexact=on David Lane wrote: Given the increased number of threats and the availability of slick script blocker extensions for Firefox like NoScript (http://noscript.net/) it's only going to get more common, particularly among security conscious people. I certainly use it, only enabling Javascript for a site I'm visiting when I can see what benefit it has to me. Cheers, Dave On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 07:33 +1100, Jessica Enders wrote: Hi Pascal In the JavaScript/Accessibility/form validation discussion you mention the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript. I'm always curious just how many people this is. Do you, or does anyone else, have any statistics on this? Is there a reason you describe it as a growing number? Any information greatly appreciated. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
_javascript_ should be implemented only to supplement / layer existing functionality. Your site should operate just fine without it... There are always exceptions to this rule however you shouldn't let _javascript_ dictate how you code. Thanks, Anthony. Sven Dowideit wrote: I have JS disabled, and only enable it for sites which I decide I need it working. Due to the way I work, I often have hundreds of browser tabs open and I can leave them open for weeks with JS off. I also find it educational to see which sites have non-functional forms because they have used JS only to drive them, or who's layout is totally governed by multimedia For example, this last month we were looking into buying a car, and the only conclusion I could come to, is that most car manufacturers are not interested in selling cars, rather than they are failing media outlet wannabes. Sven ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org***
Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
David Lane wrote: Given the increased number of threats and the availability of slick script blocker extensions for Firefox like NoScript (http://noscript.net/) it's only going to get more common, particularly among security conscious people. I certainly use it, only enabling Javascript for a site I'm visiting when I can see what benefit it has to me. As good as it is to hear anecdotal evidence from expert users such as list members here, I'd say it's much more important to bring some actual live user stats to the table. Most normal users don't even know that the internet is not just the blue E on their desktop, or what javascript is, or how to install extensions, or what security threats are. Heck, most don't even know that they can zoom/text resize/print most of the time, without having a widget or icon on the actual pages. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Hello Patrick, On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 21:55 +, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: David Lane wrote: Given the increased number of threats and the availability of slick script blocker extensions for Firefox like NoScript (http://noscript.net/) it's only going to get more common, particularly among security conscious people. I certainly use it, only enabling Javascript for a site I'm visiting when I can see what benefit it has to me. As good as it is to hear anecdotal evidence from expert users such as list members here, I'd say it's much more important to bring some actual live user stats to the table. Most normal users don't even know that the internet is not just the blue E on their desktop, or what javascript is, or how to install extensions, or what security threats are. Heck, most don't even know that they can zoom/text resize/print most of the time, without having a widget or icon on the actual pages. Agreed - the level of savvy of most user is absurdly low, and at present few will know what Javascript is, much less how to disable it. The question is whether people today design for today's users, or tomorrow's... The trend will continue towards more sophisticated users, using better browsers (i.e. not IE) which support useful plugins like NoScript and their analogues for Opera, Webkit, etc. I suspect as more and more people get burned by identity theft and other forms of exploitation, the pain individuals experience will provide a strong motivation for learning. Also, organisations will increasingly make that decision on behalf of their users to minimise their own risk... Cheers, Dave -- David Lane = Egressive Ltd = d...@egressive.com = m:+64 21 229 8147 p:+64 3 963 3733 = Linux: it just tastes better = nosoftwarepatents http://egressive.com we only use open standards: http://w3.org Effusion Group Founding Member === http://effusiongroup.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Agreed, if people have real long term usage statistics that they can share to support the claim that Javascript use is in decline, and not focus on very one-sided arguments of personal use or everyone i know then I'd be interested to hear. Until that time, or my own analysis supports these claims (which they certainly do not) I will remain completely sceptical. Oh and arguments over technical solutions that provide the ability to limit Javascript usage and talking about increasing threats etc are not terribly insightful as these are the same arguments that were made years ago and its a very old and unsubstantiated argument (for example, I can assure you that the large array of anti-Flash extensions for Firefox has made bugger all impact on the market penetration of Adobe's Flash Player or its usage). David Patrick H. Lauke wrote: David Lane wrote: Given the increased number of threats and the availability of slick script blocker extensions for Firefox like NoScript (http://noscript.net/) it's only going to get more common, particularly among security conscious people. I certainly use it, only enabling Javascript for a site I'm visiting when I can see what benefit it has to me. As good as it is to hear anecdotal evidence from expert users such as list members here, I'd say it's much more important to bring some actual live user stats to the table. Most normal users don't even know that the internet is not just the blue E on their desktop, or what javascript is, or how to install extensions, or what security threats are. Heck, most don't even know that they can zoom/text resize/print most of the time, without having a widget or icon on the actual pages. P *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Again, can you show that the small decline in IE's market share has contributed to users blocking Javascript or using specific Firefox extensions? IE has had plugins such as the Web Accessibility Toolbar etc for some years now that allow disabling of Javascript very easily, so why would the usage of another browser and additional extensions change this? People do change their viewing habits all the time, and migrations between browsers will continue (whether to IE detriment or not), it doesn't mean people are getting smarter or that they are concerned at all about Javascript (im sure the security concerns over IE6/7 that have talked about over in the mainstream news networks over the past couple of years have had nothing to do with Javascript, and are far more related to Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX functionality). If memory serve's, the people are getting smarter observation has been stated on this mailing list since its inception, and we've yet to see any evidence of this. David David Lane wrote: Agreed - the level of savvy of most user is absurdly low, and at present few will know what Javascript is, much less how to disable it. The question is whether people today design for today's users, or tomorrow's... The trend will continue towards more sophisticated users, using better browsers (i.e. not IE) which support useful plugins like NoScript and their analogues for Opera, Webkit, etc. I suspect as more and more people get burned by identity theft and other forms of exploitation, the pain individuals experience will provide a strong motivation for learning. Also, organisations will increasingly make that decision on behalf of their users to minimise their own risk... Cheers, Dave *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Comments inline: On 27/01/2009, at 7:33 AM, Jessica Enders wrote: Hi Pascal In the JavaScript/Accessibility/form validation discussion you mention the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript. I'm always curious just how many people this is. Do you, or does anyone else, have any statistics on this? Is there a reason you describe it as a growing number? Any information greatly appreciated. No, I don’t have access to any statistics on the matter. I want to clarify that my comment does not address the growing number of new Internet users who most likely will have JavaScript turned on or the majority of users in a holistic sense. I don’t think the users that disable JS are a majority but I definitely think they are on the rise as many security experts are recommending JS to be disabled by default. Whether or not JS-disabled users are a statistic worth noting should not be in question here. I think Anthony Ziebell puts it best: “JavaScript should be implemented only to supplement / layer existing functionality. Your site should operate just fine without it… There are always exceptions to this rule however you shouldn’t let JavaScript dictate how you code.” Kind regards. —Pascal Cheers Jessica Enders Principal Formulate Information Design http://formulate.com.au Phone: (02) 6116 8765 Fax: (02) 8456 5916 PO Box 5108 Braddon ACT 2612 On 19/01/2009, at 11:14 PM, Simon Pascal Klein wrote: If there were further communication between the user and server between submission of the form that would entail a page reload then a screen user shouldn’t have an issue, whereas if JavaScript would run in the background and inject errors or suggestions as it thinks the user makes them (e.g. password complexity recommendations, username not available messages) numerous accessibility issues arise. The only solution that came to mind was having a generic message (such as ‘please fill out all marked (*) fields’ or the like) that could be hidden using CSS and through JavaScript ‘unhidden’ when an error appears (though it could only be a generic error). As dandy as these automatic feedback and error messages are through JavaScript maybe a full submission and subsequent page reload is best—after all it’s impossible to tell those users using an accessibility aid like a screen reader from those who do not, and hey, the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript won’t see the glitzy JavaScript injected errors anyway. Just my 0.2¢. On 19/01/2009, at 5:52 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Isn't 'aria-required' a non-standard attribute? Sadly, yes. But there is some hope: it is possible that ARIA will be accepted in HTML5 and there is an initiative to provide validation for (X)HTML+ARIA: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Sep/0381.html Validator.nu already has experimental support for HTML5+ARIA, and I believe (did not check) http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/ provides the same for document type HTML5. There is also a possibility to add ARIA attributes with Javascript. All the options are controversial, but that's how it is for now :( Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** --- Simon Pascal Klein Concept designer (w) http://klepas.org (e) kle...@klepas.org *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** --- Simon Pascal Klein Graphic Web Designer Web: http://klepas.org E-mai: kle...@klepas.org Twitter: @klepas; http://twitter.com/klepas Kaffee und Kuchen. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Doesn't ie6's highest security setting turn js off? I haven't looked at ie7 but would assume similar. Regards Paul -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Simon Pascal Klein Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2009 2:59 PM To: Jessica Enders Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript Comments inline: On 27/01/2009, at 7:33 AM, Jessica Enders wrote: Hi Pascal In the JavaScript/Accessibility/form validation discussion you mention the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript. I'm always curious just how many people this is. Do you, or does anyone else, have any statistics on this? Is there a reason you describe it as a growing number? Any information greatly appreciated. No, I don't have access to any statistics on the matter. I want to clarify that my comment does not address the growing number of new Internet users who most likely will have JavaScript turned on or the majority of users in a holistic sense. I don't think the users that disable JS are a majority but I definitely think they are on the rise as many security experts are recommending JS to be disabled by default. Whether or not JS-disabled users are a statistic worth noting should not be in question here. I think Anthony Ziebell puts it best: JavaScript should be implemented only to supplement / layer existing functionality. Your site should operate just fine without it... There are always exceptions to this rule however you shouldn't let JavaScript dictate how you code. Kind regards. -Pascal Cheers Jessica Enders Principal Formulate Information Design http://formulate.com.au Phone: (02) 6116 8765 Fax: (02) 8456 5916 PO Box 5108 Braddon ACT 2612 On 19/01/2009, at 11:14 PM, Simon Pascal Klein wrote: If there were further communication between the user and server between submission of the form that would entail a page reload then a screen user shouldn't have an issue, whereas if JavaScript would run in the background and inject errors or suggestions as it thinks the user makes them (e.g. password complexity recommendations, username not available messages) numerous accessibility issues arise. The only solution that came to mind was having a generic message (such as 'please fill out all marked (*) fields' or the like) that could be hidden using CSS and through JavaScript 'unhidden' when an error appears (though it could only be a generic error). As dandy as these automatic feedback and error messages are through JavaScript maybe a full submission and subsequent page reload is best-after all it's impossible to tell those users using an accessibility aid like a screen reader from those who do not, and hey, the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript won't see the glitzy JavaScript injected errors anyway. Just my 0.2¢. On 19/01/2009, at 5:52 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Isn't 'aria-required' a non-standard attribute? Sadly, yes. But there is some hope: it is possible that ARIA will be accepted in HTML5 and there is an initiative to provide validation for (X)HTML+ARIA: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Sep/0381.html Validator.nu already has experimental support for HTML5+ARIA, and I believe (did not check) http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/ provides the same for document type HTML5. There is also a possibility to add ARIA attributes with Javascript. All the options are controversial, but that's how it is for now :( Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** --- Simon Pascal Klein Concept designer (w) http://klepas.org (e) kle...@klepas.org *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** --- Simon Pascal Klein Graphic Web Designer Web: http://klepas.org E-mai: kle...@klepas.org Twitter: @klepas; http://twitter.com/klepas Kaffee und Kuchen. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
According to statistics supplied by w3schools.com, as of Jan 08 approximately 95% of users had JS enabled. Check out http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp and look towards the middle of the page for the stats. Rick -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Simon Pascal Klein Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:59 PM To: Jessica Enders Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript Comments inline: On 27/01/2009, at 7:33 AM, Jessica Enders wrote: Hi Pascal In the JavaScript/Accessibility/form validation discussion you mention the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript. I'm always curious just how many people this is. Do you, or does anyone else, have any statistics on this? Is there a reason you describe it as a growing number? Any information greatly appreciated. No, I dont have access to any statistics on the matter. I want to clarify that my comment does not address the growing number of new Internet users who most likely will have JavaScript turned on or the majority of users in a holistic sense. I dont think the users that disable JS are a majority but I definitely think they are on the rise as many security experts are recommending JS to be disabled by default. Whether or not JS-disabled users are a statistic worth noting should not be in question here. I think Anthony Ziebell puts it best: JavaScript should be implemented only to supplement / layer existing functionality. Your site should operate just fine without it There are always exceptions to this rule however you shouldnt let JavaScript dictate how you code. Kind regards. Pascal Cheers Jessica Enders Principal Formulate Information Design http://formulate.com.au Phone: (02) 6116 8765 Fax: (02) 8456 5916 PO Box 5108 Braddon ACT 2612 On 19/01/2009, at 11:14 PM, Simon Pascal Klein wrote: If there were further communication between the user and server between submission of the form that would entail a page reload then a screen user shouldnt have an issue, whereas if JavaScript would run in the background and inject errors or suggestions as it thinks the user makes them (e.g. password complexity recommendations, username not available messages) numerous accessibility issues arise. The only solution that came to mind was having a generic message (such as please fill out all marked (*) fields or the like) that could be hidden using CSS and through JavaScript unhidden when an error appears (though it could only be a generic error). As dandy as these automatic feedback and error messages are through JavaScript maybe a full submission and subsequent page reload is bestafter all its impossible to tell those users using an accessibility aid like a screen reader from those who do not, and hey, the growing number of users who purposefully disable JavaScript wont see the glitzy JavaScript injected errors anyway. Just my 0.2¢. On 19/01/2009, at 5:52 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Isn't 'aria-required' a non-standard attribute? Sadly, yes. But there is some hope: it is possible that ARIA will be accepted in HTML5 and there is an initiative to provide validation for (X)HTML+ARIA: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Sep/0381.html Validator.nu already has experimental support for HTML5+ARIA, and I believe (did not check) http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/ provides the same for document type HTML5. There is also a possibility to add ARIA attributes with Javascript. All the options are controversial, but that's how it is for now :( Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** --- Simon Pascal Klein Concept designer (w) http://klepas.org (e) kle...@klepas.org *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** --- Simon Pascal Klein Graphic Web Designer Web: http://klepas.org E-mai: kle...@klepas.org Twitter: @klepas; http://twitter.com/klepas Kaffee und Kuchen. *** List Guidelines:
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Paul Hudson wrote: Doesn't ie6's highest security setting turn js off? Yes, and all that goes with it - like IE-expressions. I haven't looked at ie7 but would assume similar. IE7 same as IE6. From the look of it - brief testing - IE8b2 also turns off script-support in high security mode. Statistics are as unreliable as they ever were, but one can deduct from crawling around in stats and reading various stat-based conclusions that 5 to 10% of web surfers have javascript support disabled - at least on some sites, or use browsers with no script-support - not many of those. Don't think one can get any closer. No real indication that javascript support disabled is on the rise, but not that it falls either. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] How to hide/show form questions with javascript while meeting WCAG 2?
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Hi
everyone,
I am starting to learn javascript/jquery and would like to use it to
hide questions on a form dependant on the answer to another question.
I have seen plenty of working examples but am concerned that they
wouldn't be accessible or comply with WCAG 2.0.
Does anyone have an example of best practice or can advise on how
they deal with this issue?
The websites I have been looking at include:
http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/usableforms.html
http://www.frinity.com/posts/css/show-hide-form-field-selecting-a-radio-button-option
Thank you,
~Rachel
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
